In a ploy to sell more subscriptions, the New York Post has blocked all iPad access via Safari to its website. A recent report from paidContent.org gives a insight on the situation.

According to thorough tests, the New York Post has blocked all connection to any part of its website via Safari. Even the front page is inaccessible. This move was made to have people re-direct their viewing of the New York Post to the official application. With this captive audience, subscribers will have to pay for subscriptions. The subscription plans are the following:

$6.99/month

$39.99/six months

$74.99/year

Unlike companies such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, who offer limited access via Safari, the New York Post restricted all access forcing users to have to use the official application. Oddly enough, this issue has only been seen within the Safari web browser on the iPad as applications like Opera and Skyfire have not run into this problem.

Will this move drive other news companies to do the same? I'm sure many would agree that this move could possibly shrink their mobile viewing substantially.

It's interesting to see how charging models are being worked out.
Here in the UK the Times and Sunday Times charge for access to their website and the charge includes the iPad app. The app by itself is more expensive than the digital sub.

The Financial Times has, however, scrapped it's iPad app but has a web version formatted for the iPad.

Although I am sure there are ways round the NYP's block the vast majority of people won't know or bother.

Is it worth the sub? I don't know, I've never read it. But I stopped reading the Times online when they started charging but when I got my iPad I tried the 30 days free trial and am now hooked. I have continued paying £2/week) because the content is excellent. If the content is worth it, people will pay. If they can get the same for free, they probably won't.

He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.

Colossally stupid, given the aforementioned workarounds, though why anyone would bother doing so just to read Murdoch's rag is beyond me.

Exactly... I don't pay attention to most of the modern news media any more because they're all crap. If it's not being spun one way, it's being spun another way. It's no longer about "the facts" so much as it's about who is paying for the broadcast so make it look good for them, and bad for the other guy. Also, why would I pay to read a bunch of depressing crap like "15 killed in metro crash yesterday morning" or "Wildfire burns 20 more homes overnight" with nothing cheerful to at least counter that. Am I the only one that thinks there needs to be more good in the news instead of all the bad, if you're even going to watch it at all? I mean, seriously, if I want to go depressed, I have plenty of other ways to do that. </rant>

This is almost as bad as The New Yorker's ridiculously ungreen policy of charging $59.99 for iPad digital access, but $39.95 for Print and Digital. These newspapers are going to have to find new models that aren't subscription, or at least models that are reasonable, or they'll lose business.

Blocking all of your content is such a terrible idea-- you can't get customers if they don't even get a chance to try your product first.

It's interesting to see how charging models are being worked out.
Here in the UK the Times and Sunday Times charge for access to their website and the charge includes the iPad app. The app by itself is more expensive than the digital sub.

The Financial Times has, however, scrapped it's iPad app but has a web version formatted for the iPad.

Although I am sure there are ways round the NYP's block the vast majority of people won't know or bother.

Is it worth the sub? I don't know, I've never read it. But I stopped reading the Times online when they started charging but when I got my iPad I tried the 30 days free trial and am now hooked. I have continued paying £2/week) because the content is excellent. If the content is worth it, people will pay. If they can get the same for free, they probably won't.

As you may be less familiar with the content of the NYP, (perhaps even less so, since the recent ban) I would say they fall somewhere between the Daily Mail and The Sun, for editorial quality, content and readership.

If the 'New York Times' and the 'Times' can get away with forcing their moderately literate readers into paying for the privilege of accessing some parts of their online material, it must seem plausible to other papers that they could have similar success with this model.

NYP hasn't proven itself the most technologically savvy entity in the past, and I DO suspect this move will have a greater effect of depressing and suppressing readership, than extracting money from them; but I'd be surprised if iPad users make up a large proportion of their readership anyway- let alone persons from the wild Internet at large.

Yes, I suspect it will hurt them, but given the circumstances, it won't hurt much. Yes, it gives us another reason to laugh at their foolishness, even without setting eyeballs on their text.